Initiating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) in heart failure: results of TITRATION, a double-blind, randomized comparison of two uptitration regimens

The aim is tassess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%). A 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘condensed’ regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily (‘conservative’ regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in (‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’) 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for ‘condensed’ vs. ‘conservative’; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/‘condensed’ vs. high-dose/‘conservative’ and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/‘conservative’ vs. low-dose/‘condensed’. Initiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

Effect of sonic and ultrasonic activation on organic tissue dissolution from simulated grooves in root canals using sodium hypochlorite and EDTA

Aim: To compare soft-tissue dissolution by sodium hypochlorite, with an EDTA intermediate rinse, with or without activation with passive ultrasonic activation (PUI) or sonic activation using the Endoactivator (EA) or Eddy tips (ED). Methodology: The root canals of eighty-three human maxillary central incisors were chemo-mechanically prepared and the teeth split. A standardized longitudinal intracanal groove was created in one of the root halves. Eighty-three porcine palatal mucosa samples were collected, adapted to fit into the grooves and weighed. The re-assembled specimens were randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 20), based on the final rinse: no activation; EA; PUI; ED, using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, with an EDTA intermediate rinse. A control group (n = 3) was irrigated with distilled water without activation. The solutions were delivered using a syringe and needle 2 mm from working length. Total irrigation time was 150 s, including 60 s of activation in the specific groups. The study was carried out at 36 ± 2 °C. The porcine palatal mucosa samples were weighed after completion of the assays. Student paired t-test and anova were used to assess the intra- and intergroup weight changes. The multiple comparisons were evaluated using Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Results: Weight loss occurred in all experimental groups. Irrigant activation resulted in greater weight loss when compared to the nonactivated group [vs. EA (P = 0.001); vs. PUI (P < 0.001); vs. ED (P < 0.001)]. No significant differences were found amongst the different activation systems. Conclusions: Activation increased the tissue-dissolving activity of irrigants from artificial grooves in root canals of maxillary central incisors. © 2016 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.